GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[Mike D]

The Feds don't buy much land anymore. And it's the states that limit the tags non residents can draw not the Feds. The states will just sell it all and there will be NO access to the lands for anybody. So this is not good.

Can you show examples of where this has happened? I'm genuinely asking because typically I'm all about taking power from the fed sand giving it back to the states where it belongs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Etxnoodler]

Can you show examples of where this has happened? I'm genuinely asking because typically I'm all about taking power from the fed sand giving it back to the states where it belongs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/sports/outdoors/2015/11/06/durkin-selling-off-state-land-betrayal/75048514/

[Vermin93]

Can you show examples of where this has happened? I'm genuinely asking because typically I'm all about taking power from the fed sand giving it back to the states where it belongs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes...

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/08/transferring-control-of-federal-lands-would-devastate-hunting-and-fishing

Transferring Control of Federal Lands Would Devastate Hunting and Fishing
The recent movement to do away with the concept of federal lands has nothing to do with freedom. It’s just the opposite—and would change hunting and fishing as we know it...

• Nevada was given 2.7 million acres of federal land when it became a state in 1864. All but 3,000 acres of that has been sold off.

• Utah has already sold more than 50 percent of the lands granted to it at statehood.

• Idaho has sold off 41 percent of its state lands since gaining statehood in 1890, which equates to 13,500 acres per year going into private hands.

And the history of land under state ownership is not good. A report by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a national sportsmen’s conservation group, cites these figures:

• In Colorado, only 20 percent of state trust lands are open to the public for hunting and fishing.

• To help ease budget woes in Wisconsin, the state is currently in the process of selling off 10,000 acres of state-owned land.

• In Oregon, as timber revenue from it has declined, the state has been forced to auction off the 92,000-acre Elliot State Forest. Oregon was originally granted 3.4 million acres and has only 776,000 acres left.

• In Idaho, a European-esque hunt club has leased state land for exclusive hunting rights.

[Etxnoodler]

If your talking about limiting access you just have to look at the non resident caps many states impose. Like Idaho where trophy species have a MAX of 10 percent of the quota that can be drawn by non residents but the 10 percent is not guaranteed. I would usually agree with y'all that the states should have the power. But this land issue should be one of the exceptions to that rule.

[gemini2759]

The Feds don't buy much land anymore. And it's the states that limit the tags non residents can draw not the Feds. The states will just sell it all and there will be NO access to the lands for anybody. So this is not good.

Feds have been in a buying mode the last few years around where I live, extending the Bahia Grande area and creating corridors. They are currently working on obtaining another 400 acres surrounding the community where I live. We do not have access to it.

[Ætheling]

I don't know about other states but if its a choice between TPWD or the Fed managing our lands than the Fed can go pound sand for all I care.

[WItoTX]

If all the hunting opportunities on federal land in western states weren't already under the control of the states who are working to further limit non-resident hunters' access to hunting on those federal lands more and more every year, I might be more concerned about all of this. But the fact is that if you don't live in one of those states, you've already lost a LOT of opportunity to hunt there. Trying to play the permit draw game nowadays takes years and years to draw a quality tag, and it costs about as much or more as buying a hunt on private land too.

I don't like having my federal tax dollars spent to support free hunting for people who live in the states that have all the public land while their state governments are fixing it so I have little to no chance of ever hunting there for free myself. If the states are going to make all the rules, then let their residents pay for it all and leave me out. If they end up selling some of the land, then maybe there will be more opportunities for me to buy a landowner tag and go hunt there without waiting 20-30 years to draw one.

Agree with this. Its a racket run by each state already, a little transfer of what a piece of paper says doesn't affect me.

I have been doing a lot of work lately figuring out tags an what not out west, which is really what made me change my mind on all of this.

[WItoTX]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/...ayal/75048514/

This story is only half truth, and the Green Bay Press Gazette is a liberal rag. As a native Wisconsinite, a lot of the public land was sold to timber companies. These timber companies, in exchange for a reduced tax rate, put their property in forest crop. This means the land remains public, can be used by anyone, but the timber companies retain the rights to timber. And any citizen can do this same thing.

We used to have two of these public properties next to us, and once they were sold to the timber companies, we went from daily trespassing to almost non existent, because people were too lazy to understand the rules, and just stopped hunting there. It was a good thing.

[Etxnoodler]

This story is only half truth, and the Green Bay Press Gazette is a liberal rag. As a native Wisconsinite, a lot of the public land was sold to timber companies. These timber companies, in exchange for a reduced tax rate, put their property in forest crop. This means the land remains public, can be used by anyone, but the timber companies retain the rights to timber. And any citizen can do this same thing.

We used to have two of these public properties next to us, and once they were sold to the timber companies, we went from daily trespassing to almost non existent, because people were too lazy to understand the rules, and just stopped hunting there. It was a good thing.

This does not change the fact that the land was sold. It went from complete control of the state to the timber company. What happens if they decide they don't care about the lower tax rate? I bet they can shut it down to access. I do not know that however. And that is wisconsin.

But besides that. Most timber companies do not give a crap about wildlife. They will do the bare minimum legal requirements and that's it. Given some wildlife species benifit from some of those timber practices. The state could manage it for timber and wildlife and public access.

Also, when you start talking about selling land out west some would be timber companies but I would bet a lot would be sold to million/ billionaires and nobody will step foot on it to hunt again. You just have to look at the valleys around Aspen and Vail Colorado to see that.

This is not good guys! If you think it's hard to hunt out west now wait till it's mostly private land.
Also if the western states didn't limit the number of tags there would be no wildlife left to hunt. Think about it. There is no reason to limit tags in texas because it's mostly private land. Theres no reason to to limit tags in most eastern states because they are mostly private land and not many people travel to hunt there. saying you don't care what happens to the land because it's hard to draw a tag for big game is a bit vindictive. Plus they are open to small game, fishing, camping, hiking to everybody at the moment. Will not be the case if sold.

[bossbowman]

TPWD does much better about allowing access to public hunting lands.

No they do not, you need to vistit some other states...

That must explain why I haven't drawn a hunt on TX state land in 5 years and instead settle for open access to the LBJ National Grasslands.

Yep, the opportunity the state allows for public land stinks, especially for big game.

[Vermin93]

GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

I don't know about other states but if its a choice between TPWD or the Fed managing our lands than the Fed can go pound sand for all I care.

What state and federal lands in Texas do you usually hunt?

[SolocamShooter]

Maybe so but the feds just use OUR tax dollars to buy land and then restrict us from using it. TPWD does much better about allowing access to public hunting lands.

You serious? Texas has some of the suckiest public land hunting access anywhere in the country!

[Solosoldier]

Here is a map of the percentage of land owned by the feds in each state.

[Sparkles]

You serious? Texas has some of the suckiest public land hunting access anywhere in the country!

Yup



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ætheling]

What state and federal lands in Texas do you usually hunt?

Never said anything about allowing hunting, I said managing. The list of ones I visit is way too long to begin listing. State Parks in my opinion are managed better than federal ones.